"I don't think I've claimed to speak for conservatives, I don't think I've claimed there is a conservative plan, I don't think I've claimed to have a plan or need a plan. So, I don't have any need to answer your question."

Whatever.

So everyone who really wants to discuss the issue and compare ideas, don't ask Heretic to contribute, he will just get insulted and accuse you of making the false assumption that he has any ideas.

And there you have the problem with most current Conservatives. There is no plan. All they want to do is say "no."

I can imagine plenty of ways a Conservative can think of issues and plans, that are not the same as the Liberals, but they will not engage in that effort. They have given into the idea that plans and creativity are the sole possession of Liberals, and all they can do is say "no." (And, God forbid that someone adopts a plan of theirs; it instantly becomes "Socialism" as we saw with Obamacare.)

That type of thinking is a dead end and will destroy the Republican Party if it continues.

portia wrote:And there you have the problem with most current Conservatives. There is no plan. All they want to do is say "no."

I can imagine plenty of ways a Conservative can think of issues and plans, that are not the same as the Liberals, but they will not engage in that effort. They have given into the idea that plans and creativity are the sole possession of Liberals, and all they can do is say "no." (And, God forbid that someone adopts a plan of theirs; it instantly becomes "Socialism" as we saw with Obamacare.)

That type of thinking is a dead end and will destroy the Republican Party if it continues.

Yes, sadly, it iOS t about ideas and policies any more, it is pure tribalism.

Republicans are blocking Obama's nominations to the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit, apparently on the theory that there's no need to fill vacant seats, and even bizarrely accusing him of court packing, even though these are previously established seats which are vacant.

To be fair, delaying court nominations from the current administration has been a habit of many, many Congresses.

The argument that the DC Circuit doesn't have enough work has been used before. I have no idea if that is true of the Circuit. BUT, it is certainly NOT true of many other Circuits. It is also not true of many US District Courts. Paradoxically, the business community is just as frustrated with federal court delays as anyone, as their cases cannot get decided, either.

portia wrote:To be fair, delaying court nominations from the current administration has been a habit of many, many Congresses.

The argument that the DC Circuit doesn't have enough work has been used before. I have no idea if that is true of the Circuit. BUT, it is certainly NOT true of many other Circuits. It is also not true of many US District Courts. Paradoxically, the business community is just as frustrated with federal court delays as anyone, as their cases cannot get decided, either.

I don't remember the actual numbers, but I read a report in this issue a couple months back, and while the DC Circuit has a lower caseload than other circuits in terms if the numbers of cases they have to handle, the average complexity of their cases is much higher, because of the regulatory issues that are so often involved. So, yes, smaller caseload in raw numbers, heavier workload in terms if actual legal judgy stuff that needs to be done.

Balancing 100 drug cases against two regulatory cases and figuring out which is the heavier caseload is impossible. However, all the circuits and all the District have heavy caeloads, and vacancies.All cases are slowed down. It is not efficient.

portia wrote:Balancing 100 drug cases against two regulatory cases and figuring out which is the heavier caseload is impossible. However, all the circuits and all the District have heavy caeloads, and vacancies.All cases are slowed down. It is not efficient.

Well, if you are saying that all judicial vacancies should be filled without undue delay, then I agree. I was just trying to offer the counter point to the "they have a lower caseload" argument.

portia wrote:Balancing 100 drug cases against two regulatory cases and figuring out which is the heavier caseload is impossible. However, all the circuits and all the District have heavy caeloads, and vacancies.All cases are slowed down. It is not efficient.

Well, if you are saying that all judicial vacancies should be filled without undue delay, then I agree. I was just trying to offer the counter point to the "they have a lower caseload" argument.

It's not simply delay for the sake of delay- it's that Millet is a shrieking leftist whop has a nasty history of ignoring the law and ruling how she likes- she has no business on any bench, much less the most powerful court in the land after the Supremes.

solicitor has completely degraded this forum (not the first). I stay away because of him, so I don't know if the mods tend to be less active these days. It's definitely a new (sad) age for Manwe. I had suggested previously that people skip reading his posts, in the hope that he would eventually go away if he consistently got no response.

solicitr wrote:It's not simply delay for the sake of delay- it's that Millet is a shrieking leftist whop has a nasty history of ignoring the law and ruling how she likes- she has no business on any bench, much less the most powerful court in the land after the Supremes.

Lyndsay Graham said he was delaying the nomination because of Benghazi (i.e. nothing to do with Millet's ideology). Even Ted Cruz praised Millet at the judiciary committee hearing and pretty much confirmed that this has little to do with her own beliefs. Legal times article

Still, Millett spent much of the time listening to Republicans explain the political rationale behind why they will fight against her confirmation in addition to two other pending D.C. Circuit nominees. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) spent about five minutes today laying out exactly where Millett stands, "irrespective of your very fine professional qualifications."

"You find yourself in the midst of a broader battle. And a battle on issues many of which are unconnected to your professional background qualifications, but issues sadly that have consumed the D.C. Circuit for decades," said Cruz, who said he has known Millett for a long time.

"There is a lot of political games when it comes to judicial nominations, both sides have decried the political games," Cruz said during the committee hearing. "But unfortunately the D.C. Circuit has been a battleground on both sides, for the politicization of judicial nominations.

That's probably the most reasonable and eloquent thing i've heard Cruz say, now that I think about it. But I digress. If you're going to lay such a heavy-handed label on someone as 'shrieking leftist whop', back it up.

Joe Scarborough was on the "Today" show, promoting his book "The Right Path."

He had two very sensible things to say, not that they are original as people have been saying them for about 20 years.

The Republicans have to decide whether they want ideological purity or to win elections. AND

Talk radio whips up people and tries--often successfully-- to force politicians to a lot of extremist nonsense (my paraphrase).

I am hoping that while I am still around to vote, that the Party will make up its mind to try to win elections. Ideological purity is working less and less. I recall that I predicted that the CA republicans would not learn the lesson and they did not. They now number less than 1/3 of the Legislature which makes them pretty much silent.

solicitr wrote:It's not simply delay for the sake of delay- it's that Millet is a shrieking leftist whop has a nasty history of ignoring the law and ruling how she likes- she has no business on any bench, much less the most powerful court in the land after the Supremes.

SOLICITR: That comment is nothing but unsupportable hyper-partisan hysteria. Just exactly the sort of thing that will cause the GOP to destroy itself.

The Republicans have to decide whether they want ideological purity or to win elections

I think they have also given up on any realistic claim to "idealogical purity", unless we are willing to accept "being against whatever it is Democrats want to do" as being a definition of Idealogically Pure Republicanism. Look at Obamacare, for instance, which fosters personal responsibility by requiring individuals to purchase their own insurance from private companies, and which spurs competition among companies by creating a marketplace in which their rates will be shown directly side-by-side. This plan is based on two bedrock Conservative principles: Individual Responsibility and Market-based Competition, and it is essentially cribbed from the plan that the Heritage Foundation put together a while back, and inspired by the plan that Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney implemented in Massachussetts. Obamacare is very conservative, yet Republicans have attacked it relentlessly as some sort of wild-eyed communist plot to destroy America (their actual rhetoric, btw). Why? Because they aren't interested in advancing Idealogically pure "conservative" principles of government, or any other principles of government, or even governing at all.

Emails and texts revealed that a top aide had ordered the closings to punish the town’s mayor after he did not endorse the governor for re-election.

“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” Bridget Anne Kelly, a deputy chief of staff to Mr. Christie, emailed David Wildstein, a high school friend of the governor who worked at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the bridge.

Later text messages mocked concerns that school buses filled with students were stuck in gridlock: “They are the children of Buono voters,” Mr. Wildstein wrote, referring to Mr. Christie’s opponent Barbara Buono.

Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.Luke Skywalker, The Last Jedi

However, New Jersey is not the only place where gridlock is used to send a message to voters/taxpayers. On Thanksgiving Day I spent half an hour boxed in at a toll booth off the Washington DC beltway because the Cash/EZPass lanes had the wrong signs lit up. When I finally reached the toll both attendant, I said to her, "You need to tell your supervisor what's happening out here." And she answered, "Oh, he knows," pointing to the building where the tolls booths are administered, "He's been watching out the window all morning."

Frelga, lol, I think the message was: I have to work on Thanskgiving so you're going to suffer.

There were too few lanes open for the volume of traffic that day, so it might have been to call attention to underfunding. Whatever the ultimate objective, we were all made aware of how miserable our lives could be if a toll booth manager's needs weren't met.

Well, folks round here are chalking it up, rightly or wrongly, to Christie specifically doing it to punish his political oponent. Whatever the reality of the situation, it's likely that this has seriously poisoned the well for any presidential aspirations he may have had since, whether he did it or not, the stink of it is going to stick to him like dog muck on his shoe pretty much forever. Admitedly, a minor offense in the grand scheme of things, but close enough to the start of the election cycle that it's going to be fresh in the minds of LOTS of people, especially since this is apparantely national and even international news. Believe it or not, I saw it on BBC America News this morning, which struck me as passing strange.

As for the man himself . . . I don't think he's of presidential timbre. Vice Presidential maybe, but he's the guy I definately want in charge of FEMA: the bully who, when it's time for action, smacks people around and forces them to move along and get things done. There's a lot of value in h aving a guy like that around. His foreign policy, though, would be a nightmare since "diplomacy" is a bit of a four letter word to him.

hamlet wrote:I don't think he's of presidential timbre. Vice Presidential maybe, but he's the guy I definately want in charge of FEMA: the bully who, when it's time for action, smacks people around and forces them to move along and get things done. There's a lot of value in h aving a guy like that around. His foreign policy, though, would be a nightmare since "diplomacy" is a bit of a four letter word to him.

Isn't that the prevailing view of any non-incumbent candidate, though? They win elections on domestic policy and then spend their time in office wrapped up in foreign policy.

If this is a blow to Christie, is it a blow to Republican hopes for the presidency? A moderate like him would appeal to floating voters better than the right wing candidates who appeal to Republican voters.

As sad as it makes me to say this, yes, this really does constitute a blow to the Republicans' future, but not one that most of the current crop of Republicans would ever consider admitting to. Christie - though he is a blowhard, jerk, bully, and somebody who failed to learn some of the lessons we learn in kindergarten - is what amounts to a moderate Republican nowadays. He's a bit idealogical, yes, but in the end when the chips are on the table, he's willing to actually work with folks who would be considered his "opponents" to get the job done. You may not, and I may not, like all of what he's done or how he's done it, but at the end of the day he's done more than the previous governors and more of substance and productivity. And with dramatically less scandal. Heck, he's even actively combatted corruption in this state, which is always a good thing.

Unfortunately, because of this fact that he's willing to wok productively with Democrats and independants, much of the Republican party considers him a rogue or traitor or "choose your own category here." Even without this scandal, he'd have trouble winning or even getting on the ticket of a primary and his . . . "brashness" would not play well in other states I don't think. Maybe New York, but I doubt folks in the South would really care for the guy, and I'm all but certain that the West Coast loathes him.

Personally, though, I'd love to see the guy run. At the very least, he'd be a bit of a shakeup for the existing "conservative" groups and maybe something of a breath of air to the whole thing. Both parties need a shakeup, though, and it's unlikely to happen this election cycle.

And yes, that "he's not good on foreign policy" is a common issue for candidates, but in Christie's case, I'd say it's an actual issue since the guy can't even spell diplomacy. He's a bully, and that simply will not play with any foreign power except for the dictatorships. Imagine the guy trying to negotiate with France or Brittain honestly. Scary thought. He's smart enough for it, but he's not got the temperment for it. Unless he picks a fantastic Sec of State and VP to really handle that hands on for him, he'd run into serious trouble there.

I agree with hamlet, Christie's place is somewhere where merits of getting stuff done outweigh the pain of having a bully in charge. And I do think this is a blow to his hopes, and subsequently to the Republican prospects. He seemed the most reasonable of the bunch, from a moderate/pragmatist view.

I heard Santorum being mentioned as the front runner, and that's just... no. Until I watched the man speak on Colbert, I never quite understood what the word "fatuous" meant.

I wouldn't vote for Christie, and I'm glad this came out to light if true. But I really want to know how those personal emails became so public.

Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.Luke Skywalker, The Last Jedi

Ironically, Frelga, I find that Christie is one of those guys that I'd actually bring myself around to registering in my new town and actually voting for, if only because he's one of the kind of people I'd like to see more of. Not so much politics as at the very least he's mostly honest and willing to do something rather than gripe about how "the enemy" prevents him from doing something.

Also also, I love your sig pic and, I'm sad to say, I'm nerdy enough to actually recognize the episode that it comes from and admit that it's a really great one. Meage-a-Trois I belive.

I would enjoy watching him in Congress. It's been a long time since I had been as impressed with a Republican politician as when Christie nearly blew his lid on Fox when asked about Romney touring Sandy-damaged areas. But that's exactly why he is not Presidential material.

I wish I had time to rewatch StarTrek.

Impressive. Every word in that sentence was wrong.Luke Skywalker, The Last Jedi

I would hope Santorum gets nowhere near the front runner position. If Christie would be bad for foreign policy ( and he likely would be, for the reasons mentioned here ) Santorum would be even worse, wouldn't he? He's a bit of a hawk.